Morocco High Council Issues Fatwa To Kill Those Who Renounce Islam

The two most serious threats to religious critics remain blasphemy laws and apostasy laws in Muslim nations, which deny citizens the right to free speech and association on matters of religion. Apostasy is particularly lethal since Muslims in many countries follow what they believe to be the need to kill anyone who renounces Islam. Morocco’s Higher Council of Religious Scholars (CSO) has this week taken a step back in time with a fatwa demanding the death penalty for Muslims who renounce their faith. In the Hadith, Bukhari 52:260 quotes Mohammad as saying “If somebody [a Muslim] discards his religion, kill him.”

Bukhari 84:57 also quotes Mohammad as saying “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” among other provisions calling for the killing of people simply because they no longer wish to worship in this faith.

This council dictates the official Islamic rules for the country and announced that Muslims who reject their faith “should be condemned to death.”

The most direct impact of these fatwas is to encourage Muslims to take such matters into their own hands as a moral killing or beating.

Apostasy remains one of the most fundamental barriers to freedom in the Muslim countries. The right to choose one’s own faith is a fundamental human right, including the right to have no faith. With blasphemy, apostasy laws remain the sirens of religious opposition in the world.

Ralph: The fact that leftist politics Is so prevalent today makes the spread of Islam even easier and faster.

Exactly what “leftist” politics are you talking about?

Freedom of speech? Freedom of belief? Freedom of movement? Freedom of sexual choice between consenting adults? Freedom to marry the person of your choice? Freedom from financial oppression and financial insecurity? Freedom from unwarranted search, seizure, or incarceration? The freedom of privacy in one’s conversations, correspondence and communications? The presumption of innocence until guilt is proven? The freedom to reach one’s potential and become an earning, responsible citizen, with good, free, safe education? Some protection against being bankrupted by a curable disease due to “your money or your life” extortion by for-profit corporations that control the cure?

Those are the “leftist” policies, I fail to see how any of them promote either Islam or Jihad.

Of course, these “leftist” freedoms make it easier for those with evil intent, criminals and terrorists alike, to plan, fund, implement and execute their evil plans.

But what fools forget is that these leftist policies simultaneously give them far fewer reasons to do so. Much crime and almost all terrorism is not rooted in religion at all. It is rooted in desperation, poverty, and despair over any legal means of escaping a hopeless situation.

People turn to religion as a source of existential comfort in such situations; religion offers them what they will not get in the real world. A promise that their oppressors will be punished, and a promise that their suffering will be rewarded in the Afterlife. Those are lies, but people believe them, and religion may also give them the courage to fight and cause pain to their oppressors, even if it kills them, to try and end the suffering of their fellow oppressed. But the religion, although it may be felt fervently, is just the excuse they need to put themselves in harm’s way in an attempt to alleviate that suffering; their own and that of those they love.

It is not the religion that causes the problem, it is the despair. The Old Testament has all sorts of prescriptions for violence, slavery, and child abuse, thoroughly ignored and dismissed by almost all middle class Christians, Jews, and Muslims (who all subscribe to the Old Testament). Dismissed because they are not at the point of hopeless despair.

Leftist policies help to alleviate despair, Rightist and authoritarian policies increase it, so do “free market” policies that effectively endorse extortion, exploitation and plutocracy as a way of life.

Tony, Your arguments about Invention are very amusing But you miss a very important distinction. Bugs Bunny, Refrigerators, Writing, And all the other things that I suppose you could think of that pop into your head through free association, Are all tangible, palpable things. God is not such a thing, Except, perhaps, in a pantheistic view. So all of your analogies are inapt.

And your notions of leftism are not in tune with reality. Leftism only uses freedom as a morphine to lure in the unsophisticated. Leftists really hate freedom. Leftists believe that individuals don’t matter, only the central control is all important. If you’ve ever seen the film Metropolis written by a Nazi And directed by Fritz Lang, Then you will have a glimpse into the ultimate world of leftists. And by the way the big corporations that purport to be capitalist, are actually truly leftist because they also believe in a centralize control, in which they are the ones who are controlling things.

Ralph: Your arguments about invention are incoherent. Bugs Bunny is not a tangible, palpable thing. Bugs does not exist anywhere in the real world, he is a construct of the imagination, a flip-book illusion of movement that our mind is tricked into perceiving as a living, thinking being. Everything Bugs says is written and voiced by an actual human pretending to speak for him. Every trick bugs plays on his hapless foes is scripted.

Bugs is precisely the same type of invention as “God,” which is another illusion. You cannot present God anymore than you can present Bugs, at best you can present a simulacrum of either.

So your criticism is inept.

As a leftist my notions of leftism are fully in tune with reality, it is YOUR notions of leftism that are out of tune with reality.

In fact, leftists believe individuals are more important than the desires of those that want the “freedom” to harm, exploit and coerce others for profit with impunity. That is the desire of those on the right constantly bleating for “free markets,” small government and less regulation; because the vast majority of that regulation was made in direct answer to failures of the free market that resulted in harm, exploitation and coercion of others.

In short we tried that route, we collectively didn’t like it, and we ended it. But those that want to continue their formerly unpunished criminality say we are “controlling” them. Well maybe so. Just like we have to outlaw murder, theft and rape, your kind has made it obvious, over the centuries, that we have to explicitly restrain you from engaging in the antisocial tendencies that bring harm, misery, poverty and disease to others.

I find the authors grasp of the facts quite lacking. You quote a Hadith by Bukhari and then say “in the Quran…” The Hadith is not the Quran even it this is where some Muslims go to justify penalties against apostasy. To my knowledge, the Quran never gives any penalties for apostasy. In fact, there are only 4 crimes mentioned in the Quran. None of these crimes have a death penalty.

This is the problem when we allow ourselves to adopt the same disjoint literal interpretation of the Quran that the fundamentalists use.

While I do agree that this development is somewhat shocking, it is clearly part of a battle for how to define Islam in Morocco. I do feel it would be good to post the response of the king, who is recognized as the highest Islamic authority in the country.

A few days after this announcement, the king participated in religious prayers where the Imam preached nearly the opposite of what this council said. It was clear that the king approved of this Imam’s message. It’s a Moroccan way of setting them on notice that they went too far. Here’s a link to it. If you don’t speak French, you’ll have to have your browser do a rough translation.

Wrong again, Tony. Bugs Bunny is very much a very real and palpable thing. If you are watching him via the Internet he is taking up very palpable and measurable bandwidth. The same is true if you see in the film, Television, DVD, Or any other means by which the creators of Bugs Bunny and they’re merchandisers transmit that information to you in one form or another.

On the matter of leftism, You clearly know nothing about it, except what the leftist media has conveyed to you, which is certainly not going to be the truth about it. In fact, the conversation with you is like hearing a direct download of the The leftist dump, As there is no genuine thinking going on at your end of this discussion. If you want to know what leftism is about, really know about, then all you need do is read a little history about communism and Nazis. They are the ultimate leftists. That is not to say that it is not within the realm of possibility That a leftist regime could be Utopian, In the sense that the central control is commanded by relatively be benign forces. But the reality is The totalitarian forces would quickly commandeer such a benign leadership. That is precisely why The founding fathers of the United States Created a government based on a capitalistic Or free enterprise system at its foundation rather than a leftist regime. They knew, as all wise people know, that leftism and freedom are incompatible In the long run and most often in the short run.

Ralph: There you go; Bugs Bunny is real. I should have expected such drivel from a religionist. Using your ridiculous argument, God is just as real (the position you are arguing against), you read about him in a book, any knowledge you have from him is on real media, or presented to you by real persons. Nothing about God is anywhere but in the minds of persons, there is no objective proof of God, all you have is communications ABOUT God, from others or from the writings of others. Just like everything you know about Bugs Bunny, everything you know about God is transmitted information in one form or another.

As for leftism; my thoughts are my own and justified entirely by my own logic, I do not parrot anybody, I do not let anybody else do my thinking for me. I do, in that process, come to the same conclusions as many others.

You, on the other hand, are obviously incapable of independent thought and independent justification for your positions; or perhaps you are just too lazy to bother.

I suggest you read about Norway, which refutes any argument you have against the reality of benign leadership; they are doing just fine.

And you are wrong; the founding fathers did not create a government based on capitalism or free enterprise at all; there is not a word in the Constitution that prevents Communism, and they were from the beginning amenable to both taxation and regulation of commerce. They did not found a leftist regime or rightist regime, they did not endorse free markets or reject them. They founded a government in which the people would decide those issues, by state and nationally, as the people saw fit. They created a complex machinery for passing laws with the intent of passing many laws for as long as the country existed, by their very acts we know they were pro-regulation. They wanted regulators representing the citizens to meet frequently to debate and pass regulations.

What the people have seen fit to do, over the centuries, is to regulate business pretty heavily in order to prevent businesses from inflicting harm for profit.

Leftism is not central control, you have been fed a lie by those opposed to any collective security net and regulation. The reason they are opposed is because having any responsibility to the environment, their community, their country or the safety, health and well-being of their employees or customers just cuts into their profit, and they just hate that. Or perhaps you are one of them, trying to convince people to act against their own self-interest by doing away with the regulations that prevent them from being poisoned or killed by the products they buy (or even by products others buy). Or bankrupted, or defrauded.

The way you describe the left is called fascism which is actually an extreme right position. Regulation is not central control of an economy, just like outlawing murder, theft and rape is not central control of an economy, or a curtailment of ‘freedom.’

There are limits to how much regulation we can have without restricting freedoms, but the limit is not zero. Zero regulation is anarchy which brings extreme predation and endangerment. Complete regulation is dictatorship which brings extreme predation endangerment.

There is a level of regulation between those extremes that minimizes predation and endangerment, which I believe lets people reach their full potential in whatever field they wish to pursue, without being robbed, coerced, cornered, or exploited, and without being permitted to rob, coerce, corner or exploit others. Leftism, in the USA, is for leveling the playing field and equalizing opportunity so more people can excel, and fewer people and their talents are wasted over circumstances that were not their fault or choice.

In that sense Leftism is partially about a safety net that helps prevent catastrophic cascades; the domino effect of misfortune creating multiplying circumstances that destroy lives, health, finances and families, that also exposes them to human predators seeking to capitalize on their misfortune. For example, the idea that missing a few payments on a modest house should expose one to the loss of tens of thousands in equity built up over decades; or the inability to pay a thousand dollars for a medicine or intervention should result in a person’s death.

That is not the only thing we believe in; we also believe in collective common infrastructure, education, nutrition and health care, all of which we believe helps everybody succeed, businesses and individuals alike.

As a businessman, I have more opportunity to be successful if my pool of candidates for employment is better educated, and expanded by the mobility delivered by roads and bridges, and my market is expanded by that same mobility.

As an employee I am more likely to be successful (and employed) if my pool of potential employers is wider, if I have more skills due to a good education, and I was not mentally stunted due to a lack of proper nutrition, safety, or health care as a child.

As a customer I am more likely to be satisfied with a wider choice of businesses to meet my needs, and more likely to be satisfied if the employees of the business I choose are well matched to that business.

We don’t want to control people’s choices; we want to expand them, and provide them with more opportunity and resources to succeed in whatever profession they choose to pursue.

Ralph: I see that often, religious zealotry coupled with unreasoned bigotry. The KKK comes to mind. That is the problem with believing in fairy tales and relying upon authority figures, some people give up on thinking altogether, and lose the ability to apprehend reality.

I’m with Tony C. And I find it amusing, troubling, and more than a bit ironic when people of faith call others detached from reality, but base their interpretation of reality on the flim-flam of faith.

I would just like to point out that science cannot prove or disprove the metaphysical. It is out of the scope of science. Any “proof” for religious issues is generally in the realm of history, where only the science that can be applied if forensic anthropology. Not very good to prove specific facts from past millennia.

So I say if one is looking for objective proofs for faith, he should look to historical proofs. In this realm, the Bible and in particularly the life of Jesus is very strong. More historical manuscripts to confirm what Jesus said & did than for any other person from antiquity.

If one’s worldview includes a spiritual realm, it would not be surprising that such a person thought that others who didn’t accept the spiritual would be detached from reality. The inverse would also be true if someone thought that others believed in something that doesn’t exist. I guess the difficulty is to try to actually understand & see things from the perspective of the other person. It seems that this is not only a problem in the Muslim world, but in this blog…

” More historical manuscripts to confirm what Jesus said & did than for any other person from antiquity. ”

There are a lot of them, sure, but none of them are contemporaneous or first hand, thus poor quality evidence. Compared to Buddha, who has not only many contemporaneous writings about him from people who knew him first hand, but that many scholars consider parts of the Pali Canon and the Āgamas to contain the actual substance of the historical teachings (and possibly even the actual words) of the Buddha and given the number of sutras compared to gospels? I think Siddhartha Gautama has a better claim on that statement as a religious leader than Yeshua ben Nazareth.